Rust Dev Thinks Limiting Steam Releases is "Insane"

[RavenTail]

snip

I see advertisements for a Square shape, but after the purchase I discover it's actually a Circle shape.

Yes that's a fine analogy. Software is the same as hardware.

What actually happened is that you bought a virtual square peg for a very real hardware play box (with ethernet). Not the play box you own. You just made a random purchase and now you're stuck with it. That, in the world of software, is you problem. And this is fine. You wouldn't want it any other way if you actually like digital distribution of software licenses to be around. If you don't like it, instead of trying to destroy it, couldn't you just not use them?

I have no issue with digital distribution at all. I use it often in fact. I have issue with developers/programers being allowed to lie to me and given resources to make finding out the truth of what they're trying to sell me harder and harder to find.

That is what Valve is doing with their lack of involvement: creating an environment for scam artists to screw people out of their money.

Valve can't, and shouldn't, be allowed to facilitate this then just wipe their hands claiming it's not their problem.

No one here is saying to destroy digital distribution. We are demanding assurance as a consumer.

 

[Vegosiux]

Guess what other people don't think the same as you and just because you don't think something is great doesn't mean others have to agree with you. Your opinion is just yours and the beauty of capitalism means other people can spend money on what they want.

I was talking about marketing and the advertising industry, specifically, the fact that advertising isn't about "letting people know about the product"; not about the quality of any individual product. Marketing is a science of behavioral manipulation.

Also, "people spending money wherever they damn well please" isn't a capitalism thing. It's happened way before capitalism rolled around.

 

[Hateren47]

I have no issue with digital distribution at all. I use it often in fact. I have issue with developers/programers being allowed to lie to me and given resources to make finding out the truth of what they're trying to sell me harder and harder to find.

That is what Valve is doing with their lack of involvement: creating an environment for scam artists to screw people out of their money.

Valve can't, and shouldn't, be allowed to facilitate this then just wipe their hands claiming it's not their problem.

No one here is saying to destroy digital distribution. We are demanding assurance as a consumer.

And now you want Valve to hire people to curate their market for you (against Valve internal policies to stick people into shit jobs and keep them there) or at least refund you if you decide that you don't like a game or program within 7/14/21 workdays, right? For what ever reason. Couldn't read the specs, don't like 3rd party DRM, you have malware or just poorly written software installed that won't give up a resource or access to a library so the game can't run. Who gives a fuck that you are already 10 hours into a 5 euro game and it's all Steams fault for not limiting your choices.

Doesn't matter, you have rights and digital resellers don't. Since software has all the properties hardware does we should treat it the same as hardware. Seems completely fair and not at all hindering for the whole software industry. /s

Good thing I'm not in charge of Steam as I would refund everything bought in the last 7 days and ban their account if someone quoted an EU law made in 1997, and asked for a second refund. And first refunds would only apply to Valve games, putting Steam on the same customer service level as Origin regarding refunds.

Do you also expect refunds on a CD's, movies on discs and games bought in a real life retail stores that you unsealed, opened and installed with key and everything, to be refunded if it's not quuuiiite to your liking? Stuff that is actually exempt from the EU law because they were not completely unreasonable in '97.

 

[RavenTail]

I have no issue with digital distribution at all. I use it often in fact. I have issue with developers/programers being allowed to lie to me and given resources to make finding out the truth of what they're trying to sell me harder and harder to find.

That is what Valve is doing with their lack of involvement: creating an environment for scam artists to screw people out of their money.

Valve can't, and shouldn't, be allowed to facilitate this then just wipe their hands claiming it's not their problem.

No one here is saying to destroy digital distribution. We are demanding assurance as a consumer.

And now you want Valve to hire people to curate their market for you (against Valve internal policies to stick people into shit jobs and keep them there) or at least refund you if you decide that you don't like a game or program within 7/14/21 workdays, right? For what ever reason. Couldn't read the specs, don't like 3rd party DRM, you have malware or just poorly written software installed that won't give up a resource or access to a library so the game can't run. Who gives a fuck that you are already 10 hours into a 5 euro game and it's all Steams fault for not limiting your choices.

Doesn't matter, you have rights and digital resellers don't. Since software has all the properties hardware does we should treat it the same as hardware. Seems completely fair and not at all hindering for the whole software industry. /s

Good thing I'm not in charge of Steam as I would refund everything bought in the last 7 days and ban their account if someone quoted an EU law made in 1997, and asked for a second refund. And first refunds would only apply to Valve games, putting Steam on the same customer service level as Origin regarding refunds.

Do you also expect refunds on a CD's, movies on discs and games bought in a real life retail stores that you unsealed, opened and installed with key and everything, to be refunded if it's not quuuiiite to your liking? Stuff that is actually exempt from the EU law because they were not completely unreasonable in '97.

You seem to think I want to take advantage of hard working developers who actually release a functional product.

I'm talking about the dishonest developers. The ones who lie and cheat people out of money. The people like Muxwell or Killjoy. They are using Steam's overly free market system to take advantage of people and Valve doesn't seem to really care.

I don't know where the notion comes from that software is so universally different than hardware. Break it down to the bare concept:

It's a series of components that work together to produce a function.

The same thing can be said about a toaster. The various components work together to produce a function, cooked bread.

Sure you can't hold data in your hand like a toaster, but much like the toaster we're buying that software for the function it provides, or is suppose to provide. That's where things get muddled for people like you.

You buy a toaster that is defective or lacks the advertised features, you return it for a refund. However if the software you bought doesn't work or lacks the features it promised, in your mind we all should accept this. We should accept this because it's software, pure and simple.

Not sure what lead you to believe software gets a pass on quality control while everything else under the sun doesn't.

Also, I don't know where you live but I can return DVDs and CDs that have been opened for a full refund. Even if I buy them from a store's online site. There use to be a time when you could do that for games too.

 

[Strazdas]

STALKER and FO3 are playable without mods too mate. Especially the patched STEAM versions, have no problems for majority of users.

FO3 is not playable, mods or no mods, on modern machines. the game engine simply refuses to run properly. its constant crashing with no solution. it works on hardware released circa FO3 release great. new hardware however does not work with it.

Also I think you are confusing betas with demos. Paid demos are definitely "retarded".

So is paid Betas. THEY should be paying US money to bug-test their game, not the other way around.

He is not entitled to anything from me, right? I don't know if you're an expert on EU law, but if I (an EU citizen in an EU member state) order a pizza on just-eat.dk (restaurants sign up and sell food of already questionable quality there and Just-Eat takes a 10% cut), and I am not satisfied with my meal and want a 100% refund, I'm entitled to it? And who should reimburse me. The pizzeria or Just-Eat? The pizza is right here, untouched and in the original packaging.
And the EU is wrong in this case if it is indeed as you say.

If you have reasonable complaints (for example pizza is not the same as advertised, like, ingridients missing, ect) then you have a lawful right to demand refund from the company you bought it, this case the owners of just-eat.dk. It is their responsibility to make sure that the food they re-sell is of advertised quality, and when they refund your money its their business to take it further to thier suppliers or not (likely a single fluke would just be written off as accidental loss, but if its repeated offender they may demand compensation).
And no, EU is not wrong, its just not freaking insane like steams refund policies.

It could also have been prevented by the original, unfiltered tagging system (had it existed at the time). "Bad Port" used to be an actual tag, and a useful one, until Valve culled it. It's absurd that Valve can quality control tags, but refuses to do so with its own inventory. I'm not asking for much, just a base level of assurance that things will function, or that I can return them. Again, they're losing to EA at this point. EA.

Oh, yeah, they totally messed up with tags. i mean "uplay" is a banned tag now, while "Ha ha ha ha spiderman" is not. dafuq? at least "uplay" was useful for knowing games that force you to use uplay.

What the EU does is to provide consumer protection through various legislation. Companies on the other hand try to hide behind various "Terms of Use" and "EULA's". In the end, the only thing that counts is the law.
And under that law, you have the right to cancel your purchase within 7 working days and receive a refund within 30 days.

Its worth noting that in EU EULAs and TOS has no legal power (that is, the company does not have a right to demand anything based on it) and laws supersede any agreement you make with a company, including contracts unless exception mentioned in law.

 

[Hateren47]

Double post. Sorry.

 

[Hateren47]

You seem to think I want to take advantage of hard working developers who actually release a functional product.

A reasonable expectation. Not you personally, but the collective "you" (or "us") would.

I'm talking about the dishonest developers. The ones who lie and cheat people out of money. The people like Muxwell or Killjoy. They are using Steam's overly free market system to take advantage of people and Valve doesn't seem to really care.

Alright... Gimme the Cliff's notes version of that fucking plane games development. Is that developer at the very worst anything more than a troll? He could be Jim Sterling genetically grafted onto Total Biscuit trying to troll Steam for all I know. Anyway, he seems to be pleased with his game. And I have seen it running so it does at least run. Because to me it seems like he is just so incompetent that his game should be removed for a variety of copyright reasons (music not licensed and code licensed only for educational purposes, at the very least) and not because it's just shit. If the dev fixes that though I don't see why the game should be removed. I'll agree that the store pages text should also be changed to reflect the game more accurately. But other than that the game does not lie about the fact that it's shit. It even has a video next to the shitty screenshots to show you how shit it really is. But on a very unrestricted platform like Steam that is to be expected. And I still vote that it should stay this way.

I don't know where the notion comes from that software is so universally different than hardware. Break it down to the bare concept:

It's a series of components that work together to produce a function.

So are secrets. Say if you broke the seal on a letter not meant for you. One could get in a world of trouble for that. Would it be within reason to demand you return and forget the secret? It's much too vague to provide an argument. If you disagree let me know why, though.

The same thing can be said about a toaster. The various components work together to produce a function, cooked bread.

Sure you can't hold data in your hand like a toaster, but much like the toaster we're buying that software for the function it provides, or is suppose to provide. That's where things get muddled for people like you.

Are you saying, and I'm really not supporting this game, that Air Control doesn't deliver the functions it provides? No the game does not live up to the sales pitch written on the store page. In broken English and definitely not by Steam, mind you. And that should be changed. But if you just look at the video and the pictures and reviews, it seems it does provide the same shitty experience in-game.

You buy a toaster that is defective or lacks the advertised features, you return it for a refund. However if the software you bought doesn't work or lacks the features it promised, in your mind we all should accept this. We should accept this because it's software, pure and simple.

Not sure what lead you to believe software gets a pass on quality control while everything else under the sun doesn't.

Also, I don't know where you live but I can return DVDs and CDs that have been opened for a full refund. Even if I buy them from a store's online site. There use to be a time when you could do that for games too.

I live in Denmark. An EU member state with low corruption in politics, that is generally seen as a reasonable place. Here you would not be allowed to return pretty much anything on a disk if the seal has been broken. Or in case of toaster even if the packaging is not in near perfect condition worthy of a re-sale. And that toaster mind you would been already been replaced by a similar or better toaster, if no similar toaster is available, before you have a right to demand a refund. Twice. And that seems pretty balanced to me.

If I'm not up to speed on Danish consumer law I would like to be corrected. I didn't bother to look any of this up. Also store policies might be more accommodating than you're entitled to. That is their business.

Another thing about toasters are that if the factory gets a toaster back they can change the power cable or whatever is wrong and wrap it up and sell the toaster again as new. Most like still at a profit. Would probably be easier to do with a simpler physical object not directly meant for food preparation but the point still stands.

Also I think you are confusing betas with demos. Paid demos are definitely "retarded".

So is paid Betas. THEY should be paying US money to bug-test their game, not the other way around.

I like Early Access so I disagree. Don't buy them if you don't like them.

He is not entitled to anything from me, right? I don't know if you're an expert on EU law, but if I (an EU citizen in an EU member state) order a pizza on just-eat.dk (restaurants sign up and sell food of already questionable quality there and Just-Eat takes a 10% cut), and I am not satisfied with my meal and want a 100% refund, I'm entitled to it? And who should reimburse me. The pizzeria or Just-Eat? The pizza is right here, untouched and in the original packaging.
And the EU is wrong in this case if it is indeed as you say.

If you have reasonable complaints (for example pizza is not the same as advertised, like, ingridients missing, ect) then you have a lawful right to demand refund from the company you bought it, this case the owners of just-eat.dk. It is their responsibility to make sure that the food they re-sell is of advertised quality, and when they refund your money its their business to take it further to thier suppliers or not (likely a single fluke would just be written off as accidental loss, but if its repeated offender they may demand compensation).

In the history of pizza delivery i doubt a single pizza has ever been delivered entirely as advertised. Like a BigMac never looks as good as it's advertisement.

I never bought a pizza from Just-Eat. They are an internet company. I bought it from Pepe through Just-Eat.

And no, EU is not wrong, its just not freaking insane like steams refund policies.

Right. I looked it up and at the very best you have 10 days to do it if a refund is even possible today according to Directive 97/7/EC since:

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/consumer-marketing/rights-contracts/directive/index_en.htm
The Directive on Consumer Rights (2011/83/EC) replaces, as of 13 June 2014, Directive 97/7/EC on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts and Directive 85/577/EEC to protect consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises.

And The Directive on Consumer Rights says in

Article 14 about Obligations of the consumer in the event of withdrawal
paragraf (4) (The consumer shall bear no cost for)
section (b)(the supply, in full or in part, of digital content which is not supplied on a tangible medium where)
part (ii) (the consumer has not acknowledged that he loses his right of withdrawal when giving his consent.)

And as Steam has your sign away your rights to a refunds, and you agree to it before they charge you - I read that as you don't have the rights for a refund on Steam after June 13, this year, and you have to bare the costs. I'm neither a lawyer or a native English speaker so I could be wrong. And I'm not even sure what withdrawal actually means in the case of EU law. So if you want to tear into me over this one, be gentle.

The directive can be downloaded here http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011L0083&rid=1 and if that link doesn't work there is a working one in the link earlier in the post.

So we can agree that the EU is not insane in this case

Edit: Formatting and typos

 

[Hateren47]

Oh goody. It gets better. All the way in the front of the directive, before we get to the articles and paragraphs, we got the bit where EU claims themselves the rulers of a list of things and number 19 on the list says:

(19)Digital content means data which are produced and supplied in digital form, such as computer programs, applications, games, music, videos or texts, irrespective of whether they are accessed through downloading or streaming, from a tangible medium or through any other means. Contracts for the supply of digital content should fall within the scope of this Directive. If digital content is supplied on a tangible medium, such as a CD or a DVD, it should be considered as goods within the meaning of this Directive. Similarly to contracts for the supply of water, gas or electricity, where they are not put up for sale in a limited volume or set quantity, or of district heating, contracts for digital content which is not supplied on a tangible medium should be classified, for the purpose of this Directive, neither as sales contracts nor as service contracts. For such contracts, the consumer should have a right of withdrawal unless he has consented to the beginning of the performance of the contract during the withdrawal period and has acknowledged that he will consequently lose the right to withdraw from the contract. In addition to the general information requirements, the trader should inform the consumer about the functionality and the relevant interoperability of digital content. The notion of functionality should refer to the ways in which digital content can be used, for instance for the tracking of consumer behaviour; it should also refer to the absence or presence of any technical restrictions such as protection via Digital Rights Management or region coding. The notion of relevant interoperability is meant to describe the information regarding the standard hardware and software environment with which the digital content is compatible, for instance the operating system, the necessary version and certain hardware features. The Commission should examine the need for further harmonisation of provisions in respect of digital content and submit, if necessary, a legislative proposal for addressing this matter.

I read this as TOS and EULA's are a thing now as long as they live up to the other parts of The Directive on Consumer Rights (2011/83/EC) regarding digital content not sold on physical media.

I also read, as long as the seller describes the minimum specs on standard hardware it doesn't matter if it works on the consumers hardware. And this stuff isn't even written in advanced Legalese like the stuff I quoted in the previous post. That stuff was printed in the blood of a thousand weasels and could be read any way I wanted to.

So Steam is perfectly fine to have any refund policy or none at all the way I see. If not already then in 10 days.

 

[Warachia]

snip

The long and short is that you didn't buy a $60 game that doesn't work. You bought a license for software that indeed does work and you can play as much as you want for ever and ever. It doesn't run on your computer maybe but it does on mine. Therefore the license is still valid and you just don't have the hardware for it. You will get a better computer eventually and the license will still be there.

No I did not, I entered into a legally binding contract (thanks Steam TOS) to play a game that I was assured would work on my computer, if it doesn't work then they've lied to me, if they refuse to refund it then they've broken the law and stolen my money.
If I bought it at a retailer, THEN I would have bought a license.

If you don't want software to be treated the same as hardware, why are you demanding it's sold on the same conditions when you can't protect the sellers or re-sellers rights under those conditions? They just have to take a financial hit from their customers inability to read specs and reviews, right? Because they can just send the license back to the license-factory to have it fixed for you twice before reimbursing you and selling it to some one else. You know, the right of the seller not to get screwed by opportunists that will destroy your business if they could without consequences.

I read the specs, AS I ALREADY SAID, they were fine, I only want my money back when I was lied to and my money taken from me, but Steam seems to have this strange idea that a contract can bypass the law, and it cannot. Once they get my money and I've agreed to the contract, they have to hold up their own end of the contract, if the game doesn't work, then they've not held up their own end of the contract.

 

[Strazdas]

Also I think you are confusing betas with demos. Paid demos are definitely "retarded".

So is paid Betas. THEY should be paying US money to bug-test their game, not the other way around.

I like Early Access so I disagree. Don't buy them if you don't like them.Early acess is not paid betas though (altrough sometimes it is). Paid betas are for exmaple buying into BF4 beta. Early acess is more of an investment, you put money in and hope they work out into complete product.
Not a very smart thing to do either though. And i dont buy them.

In the history of pizza delivery i doubt a single pizza has ever been delivered entirely as advertised. Like a BigMac never looks as good as it's advertisement.

I never bought a pizza from Just-Eat. They are an internet company. I bought it from Pepe through Just-Eat.

I dont think you know what is "As advertised". and i actually buy pizzas from a place where it looks like in the picture too btw. and it also has all the components. so yeah, kinda like advertised.
you bought a pizza from Just-Eat. you made a contract with them. they bought pizza from Pepe and sold it back to you, for profit. What your saying is that you never bought milk from sueprmarket, you bought it from a cow thgouh supermarket. completely ignoring whole branch of economy of milk processing. cow is not at fault that you got sour milk, supermarket is.

Right. I looked it up and at the very best you have 10 days to do it if a refund is even possible today according to Directive 97/7/EC since:

10 days does not equal 0, therefore the things dont match. im perfectly fine with having 10 day window with game refunds.

steam does not have me sign anything away. i never signed anything when using steam. pressing i agree on TOS is not considered signing. in fact the only way TOS would be legally applicapble if i had to sign it BEFORE i bought the product and signed it with my actual signature (as in in writing or the digital encrypted signature that is being used in few places nowadays).

Steam does not have a right to take any of my rights away. the laws supercese any such contracts even if i signed one, which i didnt.

 

[Hateren47]

snip

The long and short is that you didn't buy a $60 game that doesn't work. You bought a license for software that indeed does work and you can play as much as you want for ever and ever. It doesn't run on your computer maybe but it does on mine. Therefore the license is still valid and you just don't have the hardware for it. You will get a better computer eventually and the license will still be there.

No I did not, I entered into a legally binding contract (thanks Steam TOS) to play a game that I was assured would work on my computer, if it doesn't work then they've lied to me, if they refuse to refund it then they've broken the law and stolen my money.

Broken what law? Are we still in the EU? Read the post before yours (top of page 5). That is from an EU directive that member states are to put into local law by June 13, 2014. The directive can be found in the last post on page 4.

If I bought it at a retailer, THEN I would have bought a license.

You would have done so either way but you would probably be closer to getting a refund if you bought it at a real physical store.

If you don't want software to be treated the same as hardware, why are you demanding it's sold on the same conditions when you can't protect the sellers or re-sellers rights under those conditions? They just have to take a financial hit from their customers inability to read specs and reviews, right? Because they can just send the license back to the license-factory to have it fixed for you twice before reimbursing you and selling it to some one else. You know, the right of the seller not to get screwed by opportunists that will destroy your business if they could without consequences.

I read the specs, AS I ALREADY SAID, they were fine, I only want my money back when I was lied to and my money taken from me, but Steam seems to have this strange idea that a contract can bypass the law, and it cannot. Once they get my money and I've agreed to the contract, they have to hold up their own end of the contract, if the game doesn't work, then they've not held up their own end of the contract.

Read the post on top of page 5 and it says that your hardware is not important as long as the seller has posted minimum specs on which the software will run on a standard configuration. I have bolded the relevant bits. EULA's and TOS of software are legal contracts under EU law now and if you sign away your rights to a refund in one then it sticks. The EULA's and TOS's just have to live up to The Directive on Consumer Rights (2011/83/EC)'s rules regarding digital content not sold on a physical media.

 

[Hateren47]

Also I think you are confusing betas with demos. Paid demos are definitely "retarded".

So is paid Betas. THEY should be paying US money to bug-test their game, not the other way around.

I like Early Access so I disagree. Don't buy them if you don't like them.Early acess is not paid betas though (altrough sometimes it is). Paid betas are for exmaple buying into BF4 beta. Early acess is more of an investment, you put money in and hope they work out into complete product.
Not a very smart thing to do either though. And i dont buy them.

In the history of pizza delivery i doubt a single pizza has ever been delivered entirely as advertised. Like a BigMac never looks as good as it's advertisement.

I never bought a pizza from Just-Eat. They are an internet company. I bought it from Pepe through Just-Eat.

I dont think you know what is "As advertised". and i actually buy pizzas from a place where it looks like in the picture too btw. and it also has all the components. so yeah, kinda like advertised.
you bought a pizza from Just-Eat. you made a contract with them. they bought pizza from Pepe and sold it back to you, for profit. What your saying is that you never bought milk from sueprmarket, you bought it from a cow thgouh supermarket. completely ignoring whole branch of economy of milk processing. cow is not at fault that you got sour milk, supermarket is.

Right. I looked it up and at the very best you have 10 days to do it if a refund is even possible today according to Directive 97/7/EC since:

10 days does not equal 0, therefore the things dont match. im perfectly fine with having 10 day window with game refunds.

steam does not have me sign anything away. i never signed anything when using steam. pressing i agree on TOS is not considered signing. in fact the only way TOS would be legally applicapble if i had to sign it BEFORE i bought the product and signed it with my actual signature (as in in writing or the digital encrypted signature that is being used in few places nowadays).

Steam does not have a right to take any of my rights away. the laws supercese any such contracts even if i signed one, which i didnt.

Those 10 days are 9 days today. It's not a time limit you have to stay within to get a refund. We are talking about June 13, 2014. In 9 days a TOS on digital software sold and delivered online is a binding contract. And those 9 days only count if your country waits on till the very last day to put the rules of the directive into local law. It probably already is in the law in your country. If that is in EU.

Regarding Just-Eat, pizza and the payment, I payed Pepe cash on delivery and he made sure Just-Eat got their cut.

 

[Warachia]

snip

The long and short is that you didn't buy a $60 game that doesn't work. You bought a license for software that indeed does work and you can play as much as you want for ever and ever. It doesn't run on your computer maybe but it does on mine. Therefore the license is still valid and you just don't have the hardware for it. You will get a better computer eventually and the license will still be there.

No I did not, I entered into a legally binding contract (thanks Steam TOS) to play a game that I was assured would work on my computer, if it doesn't work then they've lied to me, if they refuse to refund it then they've broken the law and stolen my money.

Broken what law? Are we still in the EU? Read the post before yours (top of page 5). That is from an EU directive that member states are to put into local law by June 13, 2014. The directive can be found in the last post on page 4.

I did read it, where in there does it say they are allowed to tell me a product will work on my system when it does not?
Because that's what they sold it as, a product that works on my system because it meets the specs that Steam had put out for it.
Telling me the product will work, then finding out it doesn't, then not giving me my money back, is illegal.

If you don't want software to be treated the same as hardware, why are you demanding it's sold on the same conditions when you can't protect the sellers or re-sellers rights under those conditions? They just have to take a financial hit from their customers inability to read specs and reviews, right? Because they can just send the license back to the license-factory to have it fixed for you twice before reimbursing you and selling it to some one else. You know, the right of the seller not to get screwed by opportunists that will destroy your business if they could without consequences.

I read the specs, AS I ALREADY SAID, they were fine, I only want my money back when I was lied to and my money taken from me, but Steam seems to have this strange idea that a contract can bypass the law, and it cannot. Once they get my money and I've agreed to the contract, they have to hold up their own end of the contract, if the game doesn't work, then they've not held up their own end of the contract.

Read the post on top of page 5 and it says that your hardware is not important as long as the seller has posted minimum specs on which the software will run on a standard configuration. I have bolded the relevant bits. EULA's and TOS of software are legal contracts under EU law now and if you sign away your rights to a refund in one then it sticks. The EULA's and TOS's just have to live up to The Directive on Consumer Rights (2011/83/EC)'s rules regarding digital content not sold on a physical media.

This was several years ago, that I bought this game that doesn't work, what is in place to let them keep my money was not in place then, just as the contract I entered into, and that still applies to those games, is different than the current one, and even if it still applies, where in there does it say they are allowed to post false minimum specs?

 

[Hateren47]

I did read it, where in there does it say they are allowed to tell me a product will work on my system when it does not?
Because that's what they sold it as, a product that works on my system because it meets the specs that Steam had put out for it.
Telling me the product will work, then finding out it doesn't, then not giving me my money back, is illegal.

This was several years ago, that I bought this game that doesn't work, what is in place to let them keep my money was not in place then, just as the contract I entered into, and that still applies to those games, is different than the current one, and even if it still applies, where in there does it say they are allowed to post false minimum specs?

In the last part of the definition of digital content:

In addition to the general information requirements, the trader should inform the consumer about the functionality and the relevant interoperability of digital content. The notion of functionality should refer to the ways in which digital content can be used, for instance for the tracking of consumer behaviour; it should also refer to the absence or presence of any technical restrictions such as protection via Digital Rights Management or region coding. The notion of relevant interoperability is meant to describe the information regarding the standard hardware and software environment with which the digital content is compatible, for instance the operating system, the necessary version and certain hardware features.

It says "standard hardware and software environment" not all hardware environments.

 

[Warachia]

It says "standard hardware and software environment" not all hardware environments.

WHICH IS WHAT I'M USING. I'm not an idiot, I checked to make sure it should work before I bought it, and it doesn't. That isn't on me.

 

[Hateren47]

It says "standard hardware and software environment" not all hardware environments.

WHICH IS WHAT I'M USING. I'm not an idiot, I checked to make sure it should work before I bought it, and it doesn't. That isn't on me.

I don't think we read this the same way.

So what game isn't working on what hardware in your case? Not that it matters since TOS and EULA's are indeed legal in the case of digital delivery and you do have the right to sign away your right to a refund now. I'm just curious and maybe we can get the game to run if it should be able to. I'm decent with Windows computers and I am coming up on 2 decades of experience, my google-fu is pretty strong and I have the day off. Maybe we can get it running.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

There's nothing wrong with the number of games coming out. Steam just needs to fix their horrid store-front so that terrible shovelware, old mobile game ports and early access/green-light crap isn't clogging up the front page.

Way to sit on the fence there. You can't have it both ways with all the games submitted to Steam being accepted but none of them getting displayed.

Are you suggesting they should allow anything and everything to be listed but only *display* curated, hand-picked quality titles? If so, why not only allow curated, hand-picked quality titles onto Steam in the first place and keep the "terrible shovelware" off it? You want crap games to be allowed on Steam without curation but don't want to see them? Ludicrous.

It's been brought up before but in the "New releases" section at your local game's store do you see the boxed version of "Euro Van Simulator 2015"? Do you see that anywhere apart from the bargain bin? No. ALL stores curate their content in some way. Steam has become strangely, abnormally hands off with it. For their own good steam should put what it thinks people are going to buy in places they can buy it, like a store put their hottest games "Art side up" for all to see.

Look at the Google play store. It is a complete mess filled with terrible clones, a dumping ground that can be difficult to navigate. Do we really want that for Steam? To have it as a place where people have to wave though the 99.9% of shit to find a playable, original game?

Completely agree with this. The app store is a perfect example of how hard it can be to find quality amongst all the dross and that is what Steam is becoming. A laissez-faire approach to adding content is degrading the entire platform. Trying to find a good game out of 10 titles is fine, that's the fun of browsing. Trying to find one amongst 1,000 is futile.

IMO The limit should not be a numerical one but a quality one. A game should be "at least this playable" to enter, as it were. The fact is that right now, Steam Early Access [http://kotaku.com/unfinished-steam-game-abandoned-after-thousands-bought-1572931721] allows someone to upload an Alpha, sell it for money then quit development and keep the cash. I could right now download the Unity engine, create something shitty, sell it on Early Access and jump ship with customers' money, and it is entirely above board and enabled/condoned by Steam. It's. Not. Right.

Steam Early Access needs to go, entirely. Selling unfinished games should be banned outright, restricted to Kickstarter and the like. Greenlight should be only for complete games and a human being at Valve should play each game to ensure it's completely working before it gets listed. That's the minimum IMO to appear on Stam...a working, complete product.

 

[Eve Charm]

This is just poetic coming from the rust dev that put out an early access game 6 months ago and haven't even updated it once yet. The only things they've been doing it seems is putting out dev blogs with textures of stuff to come soon.

Early access's peak and shining example was Don't starve, A game that was cheaper in early access, they even gave you a buy one get one free for supporting it in early access, it was basically already a full game, only needing balance and a few things to help balance it, Hence good reason to be in early access, and planned updates at least ever two weeks that hit out in time.

If you don't have something that is pretty much a game already, you shouldn't be allowed to early access it. We already have enough shining examples on steam that more often then not, the early access money isn't being used to finish the game, espeically when it's not even an quarter of a game to begin with.

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.851575-Jimquisition-Air-Control-A-Steam-Abuse-Story

Seriously. Steam? Get on with the fucking limiting. Get limiting now. The fact that this kind of shit even exists is obscene without you irresponsibly helping promote it.

 

[Warachia]

It says "standard hardware and software environment" not all hardware environments.

WHICH IS WHAT I'M USING. I'm not an idiot, I checked to make sure it should work before I bought it, and it doesn't. That isn't on me.

I don't think we read this the same way.

So what game isn't working on what hardware in your case? Not that it matters since TOS and EULA's are indeed legal in the case of digital delivery and you do have the right to sign away your right to a refund now. I'm just curious and maybe we can get the game to run if it should be able to. I'm decent with Windows computers and I am coming up on 2 decades of experience, my google-fu is pretty strong and I have the day off. Maybe we can get it running.

I'm aware I don't have the right to get a refund now, I was annoyed that they didn't give me a refund then.
Anyway, here's the specs, spoiled so those not interested won't be bothered.

Steam Minimum
OS: Windows XP SP2 or Windows Vista SP1
Processor: P4 3.2 GHz (single core) or any Dual Core processor
Memory: 1 GB RAM (XP), 1.5 GB RAM (Vista)
Graphics: A 128MB Video Card (Shader Model 3) - Nvidia GeForce 6600 GT / ATI X1600, or equivalent
Hard Drive: 6.5 GB of uncompressed Hard Drive space


Steam Recommended
OS: Windows XP SP2 or Windows Vista SP1
Processor: AMD Athlon 64x2 4400+ or any Intel Core 2 Duo
Memory: 2 GB RAM (XP and Vista)
Graphics: A 256MB Video Card (Shader Model 3) - Nvidia GeForce 7800 GT / ATI X1900, or equivalent
Hard Drive: 6.5 GB of uncompressed Hard Drive space


My specs
OS: Windows 7 Home Premuim 64-bit
Processor:Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2410M CPU
Memory: 4096MB RAM
Graphics: 1696MB Video card
Hard Drive: 40.6GB of uncompressed Hard Drive space

For the record it might just be that the way Steam does things doesn't agree with my computer for some reason, programs far more intensive (like the Witcher 2, the Incredible Adventure of Van Helsing 2, and Skyrim) can be run on my computer, the Steam version of Skyrim ran like shit (before you ask, yes I did a full removal of the pirated version). Conversely I did the same thing with the new X-COM game, but the Steam version runs just fine.

Also here's how I HAVE to boot up Steam, start Steam, log in, Steam closes and refuses to re-open. Start Task Manager, end process of Steam Bootstrapper Client, Start Steam, and now I don't have to re-login and steam works just fine.

Recently too Steam Bootstrapper Client has a habit of using 100% of my CPU for seemingly no reason, a few days ago, while playing Tabletop Simulator with a friend of mine, it made my computer slow to a crawl, it took half an hour (literally) for me to open task manager, then slowly crawl over to end process of Steam Bootstrapper Client, after doing that everything worked just fine, Steam booted up again without any issue, and playing Tabletop Simulator the day after wasn't an issue either.

All of this is why I do not think it is the fault of my computer that this game refuses to run.